Being open-minded

This meme is for those commenters here who accuse me of having a closed mind.

I am always happy to change my opinion or view of things – if there is evidence to suggest I should.

And no, claims that “science once thought the world was flat,” or “science once supported smoking,” is not a credible argument that we should ignore current scientific consensus. It’s especially not an argument we should suddenly adopted unsupported claims as “gospel truth.”

Along these same lines, it’s worth considering this quote from Carl Sagan – if you want me to consider a really extraordinary claim your evidence had better be exceptional.

Thank you, Ken. I get so tired of that ridiculous nonsense about asbestos, leaded gas, second smoke, etc. in regard to fluoridation…… as if we are supposed to abandon all facts, evidence, and reason, because of those issues which have no relevance, whatsoever, to fluoridated water.

And it is always amazing that antifluoridationists whose personal ideology has their minds so slammed shut that they have trouble even seeing the end of their noses, much less beyond them…..are the ones calling for “open mindedness”.

quote from Carl Sagan – if you want me to consider a really extraordinary claim your evidence had better be exceptional.
Ken and Steve – I have yet to see from either of you the exceptional evidence that supports your extraordinary claims regarding the safety and efficacy of adding fluoride to my drinking water.

1. The story to which you provide a link is irrelevant to water fluoridation.

2. The only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which have existed in water since the beginning of time, and trace contaminants in amounts far below US EPA mandated maximums for each. If you have valid evidence that there are any other substances ingested as a result of fluoridation, then present it, properly cited.

I don’t make “extraordinary claims”. I simply correct the mounds upon mounds of misinformation regurgitated all over the internent by antifluoridationists such as you.

As far as “safety”, you will first need to learn the contents of optimally fluoridated water. You will then need to provide valid evidence that these contents are unsafe. Given that the only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which have existed in water since the beginning of time, and trace contaminants in amounts far below US EPA mandated maximums for each, you will need to specify what you deem to be unsafe…….fluoride ions you’ve been ingesting your entire life, fluoridated water or not, or trace contaminants in amounts which been already been deemed safe by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

While you’re at it, you should also learn that science is evidence-based, not unsubstantiated speculation-based.

Steve my cite was to show that things can be happening in water which are very surprising.
The incorporation of fluoride in the tooth surface repair requires living organisms in the pellicle. It also is helped by magnesium.
It is interesting that water with higher levels of magnesium hardness often have lower levels of fluoride.
What we call fluoridation also involves adjusting pH. In Dunedin NZ, it was found that fluoridation was associated with lower lead levels because of the pH adjustment, with lower acidity attacking the lead house connections less. Broadbent’s study needs to be checked for that.
There are many interacting factors. Science has trouble keeping up.

Ken if extroardinary claims require extroardinary evidence we need to be sure that the evidence is allowed to be presented, and in the field of agscience the “money” does not always allow that.

1. Science is evidence-based, not personal speculation-based. If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that anything other than fluoride ions and trace contaminants are ingested as a result of fluoridation, then present it, properly cited.

A complete listing of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, along with precise amounts of any contaminants detected, as well as EPA maximum allowable levels of each, may be found in the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals” on the website of the National Sanitary Foundation:

2. The pH of drinking water is maintained at a level of 6.5 to 8.5. The theory of increased lead uptake due to fluoridation was refuted by Urbansky and Schock in 2000, and by Macek in 2006:

“Controlling for covariates, water fluoridation method was significant only in the models that included dwellings built before 1946 and dwellings of unknown age. Across stratum- specific models for dwellings of known age, neither hydrofluosilicic acid nor sodium silicofluoride were associated with higher geometric mean PbB concentrations or prevalence values. Given these findings, our analyses, though not definitive, do not support concerns that silicofluorides in community water systems cause higher PbB concentrations in children. Current evidence does not provide a basis for changing water fluoridation practices, which have a clear public health benefit.”

“Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(I1) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.”

Steve posted: “Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(I1) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.”

Indeed, however sodium carbonate *is* added for pH adjustment at the Somersby, Central Coast water treatment plant. And calcium carbonate at Mardi for example. So there is likely to be a correlation. And in a sense it will be causation if the carbonate is being added as part of the “fluoridation + treatment” package. They say “governing factors” and you add carbonate to govern back lead, if it is coming from the water attack on piping.

You have tried to turn my words around to make it look as if I were saying fluoridation increases lead. No, if you read back I say the opposite because of the carbonate added at the same time.

USA have fairly recently passed a law limiting the amount of lead additive in brass plumbing, in order to reduce lead in drinking water.

I found from Dunedin City Council that, “The one non-fluoridated area where corrosion control treatment system upgrade work occurred was in Mosgiel.” “the new treatment systems were installed in the 1990’s and up graded again in the early 2000’s.”

So if Broadbent had subjects from other non-fluoridated areas then they were not getting corrosion control (pH). And remember his study started around 1972.

Broadbent refers to lead being a possible confounding factor in Choi’s work. But it is not clear whether he is referring to his own findings when he says, “However, we suggest that any observed
link may be attributed to covariance by urban—
rural status (and exposure to lead, in some past
studies).” Though it could be his study since he follows “Because more education opportunities
may be available for central city dwellers than
those in satellite suburbs, this might explain the
slightly higher IQ at age 38 years observed
among those from areas with CWF.”

What do you think?

He ought to be more clear about the lead connections around 1972 in Dunedin.

Also from DCC:

“From memory, the DCC used to have to monitor lead levels in the main Metropolitan distribution system watermains up until the late 1990’ earlier 2000’s due to the corrosiveness of the water coming from the Mt Grand and Southern water treatment plants. These were and are fluoridated though. Following an outbreak of accelerated premature copper hot water cylinder failures, a lot of work was put into optimising the treatment process including pH and alkalinity control to reduce the corrosiveness of the water. Work over many years on corrosion control has meant that the DCC were allowed by the regulator to cease lead monitoring.”

Steve: “Fine. Then we are in agreement. There is no problem with increased lead uptake in any manner due to water fluoridatin.”
Unless the water hardness had been very great and had to be reduced to stop the fluoride precipitating out.

But, my point is: Broadbent’s lack of negative correlation, and actually a positive correlation, of IQ to fluoridation, may be explained by the lead scenario in Dunedin. To see if fluoridation has any effect on IQ, which the study was about, the effect of lead needs to be thoroughly controlled for.

How many of the 100 or so “controls” from non-fluoridated areas were getting more lead than those in the fluoridated areas. (Which would be changing as corrosion control was advancing).

If you have valid, documented evidence of increased lead uptake due to fluoridated drinking water, hard or otherwise, then present it, properly cited.

The 27 Chinese studies Choi and Grandjean included in their review were so absurdly flawed that it is a wonder that anyone attempts to use them as “evidence” of IQ reduction or anything else. Most were of the effects of high levels of well-water fluoride up to as much as 11.5 ppm. According to C&G themselves, these studies had key information missing, questionable methodologies, and inadequate controls for confounders. These studies were so flawed that C&G were led to issue a 2012 statement that they should not be used to evaluate fluoridated water in the US.

Regardless of whatever problems you may have with Broadbent, et al., Choi and Grandjean discredit their infamous 27, all by themselves. That required no help from Broadbent, or anyone else. The fact remains that there is no valid, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of any adverse effect on IQ or anything else, by optimally fluoridated water.

Brian, you seem to be suggesting that corrosion control occurs because sodium carbonate is added as part of the fluoridation procedure. However, corrosion control and pH adjustment is necessary independent of other treatments.

As any pH lowering due to addition of fluoridation chemicals will be very small, and usually occurs at the end of the treatment anyway, can you provide me with any evidence that fluoridation is always accompanied chemicals such as sodium carbonate.

Is your claim simply a belief in your part or is their some evidence you can present to support it?

Ken: “can you provide me with any evidence that fluoridation is always accompanied chemicals such as sodium carbonate?”

Carbonate won’t be *added* if it is naturally hard water. Then natural carbonate and fluoride will be “accompanying” each other.

I don’t understand it all but silicates from some fluoridation may deposit on pipes and reduce electrochemical corrosion. I should ask whether the earlier fluoridation in Dunedin involved silicates. You read their statement: “From memory, the DCC used to have to monitor lead levels in the main Metropolitan distribution system watermains up until the late 1990’ earlier 2000’s due to the corrosiveness of the water coming from the Mt Grand and Southern water treatment plants. These were and are fluoridated though.”http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/engineering/corrosion.htm

Steve: “The fluorosilicates are gone before reaching the pipes. The hydrolysis is immediate and complete at the pH of drinking water.” If the pH is too low (too acid) the hydrolysis won’t be complete. So carbonate is added to neutralise the acid. After release from the fluoride some of the silicate will be left attached to the pipe wall, so prevent corrosion, especially important if it is lead pipe which had been used for couplings in Dunedin.

“In Dunedin NZ, it was found that fluoridation was associated with lower lead levels because of the pH adjustment, with lower acidity attacking the lead house connections less. Broadbent’s study needs to be checked for that.”

But why should fluoridation be connected with pH adjustment – that occurs if it is necessary, anyway?

Lime or carbonate is added to increase the pH – not to adjust hardness.

Bicarbonate is naturally in water (the pH is normally too low to allow much carbonate), due to absorption of atmospheric CO2. It acts as a buffer – another reason why the addition of fluorosilicic acid at such low concentrations probably does not require any other pH adjustment.

And you attempt to drag in silica from the fluoridating chemical is pathetic considering it only contributes marginally to the silica already naturally present in the water.

You postulate:

“Broadbent’s lack of negative correlation, and actually a positive correlation, of IQ to fluoridation, may be explained by the lead scenario in Dunedin. To see if fluoridation has any effect on IQ, which the study was about, the effect of lead needs to be thoroughly controlled for.”

But why do that? Surely the simplest explanation is that fluoride at such low concentrations does not influence pH. You are acting as if you have a pet theory you are attempting to defend at all costs. IQ will have all sorts of social and environmental factors involved and it seems desperate to have to advance a theory that we are all suffering IQ! loss and there is no difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas because unfluoridated people are suffering an IQ loss due to Pb!

Really desperate.

Why should you adhere so desperately to the Connett theory that F causes IQ loss when even the data he relies on from Xiang shows that F can only explain about 3% of the variance in IQ? And that extremely poor correlations is not proof of causation. It will probably disappear when other factors are properly included in the statistical analysis.

This is not at all relevant to drinking water treatment as the pH has to be less than 3.5 to see incomplete hydrolysis.

As I pointed out before and silica released from fluoridating chemicals is marginal compared with the amount of silica naturally present in drinkiong water.

You again claim that “carbonate is added to neutralise the acid,” – but you have also denied claiming this. make up you mind. If you insist that carbhoinate is added to neutralise fluoridating chemical pelase provide a citation to support that claim.

So Ken, why do CDC claim this as in the link I gave?: “Using fluorosilicates to fluoridate drinking water adds silica, a corrosion inhibitor, to the water and increases the silicates available for stabilizing the pipe surface, which contributes to reduced corrosion.” According to what you say you are making their statement in propaganda.

At the pH of drinking water(~7), the hydrolysis is immediate and complete. Finney, et al. did note some intermediates at low pH (3-3.5), but this would only be relevant in regard to reformation in the gut, where the pH is in that range, not when added to the drinking water. Even in the gut, however, the amount of fluoride ions from optimally fluoridated water is too minuscule for HF formation, if it even does occur, to have any adverse effect.

Yes, the silica residual from the hydrolysis, can attach to the pipes.

Poor comprehension, again, Brian. I said the increase in silica due to fluoridating chemicals is marginal as the natural levels are much higher.

So what is said in that quote is technically correct, but of little relevance in natural waters with much more silica than the added chemicals contribute. (There could of course be exceptional situations where the natural silica levels are extremely low).

You must be out if your tree to interpret my statement as claiming the CDC report is “propaganda!”

Ken “it seems desperate to have to advance a theory that we are all suffering IQ! loss and there is no difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas because unfluoridated people are suffering an IQ loss due to Pb!”

An extroardinarily strong claim, one strong enough to force action on a whole populace, needs extroardinarily strong verification. If you label someone as desperate for asking for that you run the risk of being sidelined with propagandists.

It is desperate – an effort to keep alive the myth (despite the evidence) that fluoride is bad for IQ (based on shonky work in areas of endemic fluorsis).

With your justification, Brian, you should be campaigning against use of chlorine to disinfect drinking water, After all it is a “forced” action on practically the whole population (compared with say half the population for fluoride.

And a simple check of Google Scholar should scare the pants of the average conspiracy theorist like you. Whereas I can only find 260,000 results for the search”fluoride toxicity” I find a huge 1,870,000 results for “chloride toxicity.”

And one can no doubt find “evidence” that it causes release of Pb from pipes! *Whereas you currently seem to be arguing that fluoridation reduces release of Pb?

No that silica discussion was an extra. I am saying that in a place where water has not been going underground much, it is likely that it will not have much hardness. Such as Hamilton where it comes from the Waikato River.

Can you tell me if it were being treated with lime before fluoridation was started?

A bit of chemistry here, though not much about lead except it is a problem in soft water.

Brian, there is something on line about the Hamilton treatment plant – a while since I have read it so I am not sure now which material they use for pH adjustment. I am sure, though, that fluoride is not added until the end, after pH adjustment. Cl2 is also added then (UV treatment is used earlier in) to ensure the water is disinfected.

You will also be able to find details of treatments and chemicals used for practically any other water treatment plant in NZ on-line.

Usually it is hard to find the history. As I reported the Dunedin engineer is working from memory. It may mean a visit to committee archives. I was told that lime addition in Hamilton continued while fluoridation was stopped, which is recent info. When did it start?

Correction in Dunedin seemed to start after fluoridation from what was said.

Trev – read the meme in my post. What you have given me is a video of a leader of an activist group providing opinions. He hasn't provided any evidence (which my open mind wishes to consider) I have done a brief search on Google Scholar and cannot find any scientific articles written by him.

Further, as an avid reader of my blog you will be aware that I have discussed the evidence behind some of his opinions in a bit of depth. His opinions do not have evidential support (take, for example, his weird claims on IQ).

If you can supply me with some evidence he has published, or has provided, then I will consider it.

Ken, so the dental fluorosis on my grandgirl’s 18 yr old teeth isn’t evidence of the damage from the fluoride baths her dentist did on her teeth and she says her gf’s too. There are recent articles floating around about these young people with fluorosis.

This battle has been going on for decades and the “pushers” have gotten away with murder and I’m sure the payoffs they make are HUGE…I believe our city council members had very deep pockets…a retired dentist happens to be on our council…it’s criminal what has gone on.

And the multitude of arthritis in our population, I choose to be convinced that “F” is a major contributor, not the only contributor as there are many reasons for arthritis, but a big contributor.

Ken you have tried to associate me before with that *group* you say is anti-fluoride as part of an agenda to make money out of alternative health market.

My *agenda* is to find out and encourage finding out.

It’s a simple ploy to try to put people into opposing groups vax-antivax, fluoride-antifluoride, anthropomorphic global warming and deniers, euthanasia – antieuthanasia, “snake oil” vs “science” &c. Then any thinkers or inbetweens are very annoying and everything is tried to force them in the eyes of newcomers into one of the two categories and avoid any newcomers from getting the spark of thinking for themselves. And that is an object of your last post. You don’t want anyone to try to find out what really works from either side or in between.

Those out there who think we Alternative/Holistic healing people are into snake oil remedies, good grief, talk about closed minded people….I read that from 2010 stats, over 400,000 medically produces deaths were in the U.S., over 100,000 prescriptionn drug issues…..Ken, I see you are not printing my last comment on dental fluorosis and my grandgirl…